In the current economic climate, disputes, particularly payment disputes, are rife. Consider the following scenario. You arrive at work early on Monday morning, to discover that the supplier with whom you have been having a long-running but relatively minor dispute over payment, has secured a winding up order against your company and appointment of a liquidator from the court. Or, equally distressing, a sheriff officer appears at your door with another form of court order in his hand - an interdict - stopping you from carrying out a key part of your business activities.

THE PERENNIAL PROBLEM OF UNPAID DEBTS – YOUR RECOVERY OPTIONS

In Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd and others v Robert Smailes and others [2009] EWHC 3190 (Ch), the principal issues before the Court were whether the third claimant, Focus Insurance Company Ltd (Focus), had a real prospect of success in its claims to be, first, a creditor (under the Insolvency Act 1986) of the fifth defendant, Alexander Samuel LLP (LLP) in respect of unpaid premiums and, second, a "victim" under ss.423-425 of the Insolvency Act 1986 of the sale of LLP's business to Jiva Solicitors LLP (Jiva) effected around the same time as it went into administration.

When a person is unable to pursue a claim against someone who has been made bankrupt on account of the bankruptcy having been discharged, it may still be possible to pursue the claim against the bankrupt’s insurers, following a recent ruling.

The case involved 12 claims for breach of trust against nine solicitors and a Mr Dixit Shah. It was brought by the Law Society and 19 of the various clients of the solicitors.

One pioneer in this area is Toby Duthie, the founder-director of Forensic Risk Alliance, a forensic accounting and investigations business. Duthie became familiar with the US litigation system while assisting European companies responding to US-based litigation. Duthie recognised that there were many differences between the US and the various EU legal systems. For example, unlike in the UK, the application of contingency fees to plaintiff actions is permissible in the US (see above).

The case of Law Society v Dixit Shah (2007) EWHC 2841 (Ch) arose from the intervention of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors into an association of firms owned by Dixit Shah which traded under "the BJ Brandon Group" name. The Law Society alleged that the OSS discovered that around £12.5 million of client money had been misappropriated by Mr Shah.

In Samsun Logix Corporation v Oceantrade Corporation; Deval Denizeilik VE Ticaret A.S. v Oceantrade Corporation and another – Butterworths Law Direct 18.10.07 the Defendant in both cases was subject to Chapter 11 proceedings in the US.

The House of Lords has had some important things to say about receivers’ liability in tort, and the law of conversion.

In the recent case of OBG Ltd v Allan, the House of Lords has ruled on key aspects of economic torts and the law of conversion (that is to say, the wrongful dealing with property in a way that is inconsistent with the owner’s rights). The law lords decided that the receivers should not be held liable for the damage which a company may have suffered as a result of the loss or underrealisation of business contracts.

For lawyers dealing regularly with commercial secured lending, the requirement to register company fixed and floating charges has long been fraught with tension. It is a commercial necessity for charges over a company's assets to be registered in a publicly available register. Prospective creditors need to be able to establish how far the company's assets have been secured and are available to meet its commitments. Failure to register will result in the charge being invalid against any liquidator, administrator or creditor of the company if the company becomes insolvent.

On 2 May 2007 the House of Lords ruled that the mere appointment of a receiver was not enough for a company to recover damages for business contracts that were allegedly lost as a result of that appointment.